School reform has taken a toll on children starting in kindergarten (even preschool). There’s little doubt that children are being forced to learn to read earlier than ever before. The reading gap likely reflects the developmental differences found in children when they are forced to read too soon.
Why are schools doing this? Forcing kindergarteners to read before they’re ready means that many will fail.
Are the resulting poor reading scores being used to bring teachers and public schools down?
Blaming teachers and public schools for reading failure, might make parents more amenable to placing their children in front of computer screens for unproven reading instruction, or it helps to sell reading programs that promise miracles for all children.
Great Schools is a nonprofit that rates public schools and promotes virtual education. They’re no friend to teachers or public education.
Here’s what Great Schools says about reading in Kindergarten:
If learning to read is like building a skyscraper, then kindergarten is the year to construct the most solid foundation possible. As part of that foundation, kindergartners will be working on the five pillars of kindergarten reading: understanding the relationship between sounds and words (phonetics), reading fluently, understanding what they read, expanding vocabulary, and building knowledge.
Most of us remember learning to read in first grade. Kindergarten was a time for play, recess, and naps. Often, it only lasted half a day.
The media promotes this troubling message. Emily Hanford has already churned out articles criticizing teachers, and she has another new one by NPR called “Why Millions of Kids Can’t Read, And What Better Teaching Can Do About It.”
Her premise is demeaning to teachers, implying that they and their education schools don’t know the “science” of reading instruction.
Many of us discounted Hanford’s previous articles upon learning that she highlights the National Council on Teacher Quality, a bogus group that attacks teachers and their education schools. It is backed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and other corporations.
She also emphasizes the National Reading Panel results which have been debunked.
With this new article, Hanford is back in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and she makes lots of negative generalizations to other schools and teachers. The district’s chief academic officer says he knows nothing about reading, but Hanford focuses on claims that teachers are unprepared.
Teachers now get workshops about the “science” of reading. Science implies phonics, so this creates debate among parents and teachers.
The message that children are forced to learn to read too soon gets lost.
What Hanford doesn’t mention is the name of Bethlehem’s new $962,000 reading program by McGraw Hill.
“Reading Wonders” is listed as the first and only reading program designed specifically for the Common Core State Standards for Reading/Language Arts. Combining research-based instruction with new tools to meet today’s challenges, every component and every lesson is designed for effective and efficient CCSS.
It promises miracle scores and is in print or digital form.
Teachers have always chosen reading programs to teach reading. The difference is the way teachers are now cast as failing. The implication is that they must rely on outside corporate programs, including Common Core, to save them and their students. This weakens teacher professionalism at a time when the country needs good teachers.
Many teachers and parents aren’t buying Hanford’s claims. They wonder if formal reading programs are age inappropriate.
Here are some thoughts. Help me brainstorm.
- Reading is a joyful subject to teach.
- Parents and teachers with the school board should choose reading programs.
- Don’t tell children that they should be reading by 3rd grade, or any grade.
- Children should have a chance to learn to enjoy books.
- Kindergartners need to have a chance to be curious about stories.
- Language is developed through play and is critical to reading.
- Quit using Response to Intervention.
- Provide resource classes with reading specialists.
- Don’t start formal reading instruction until first grade.
- Reading instruction should be age appropriate.
- Let teachers assess students with tests they choose.
- Lower class sizes especially K-3rd grades.
- Recognize that children learn to read at different rates.
- Ensure that teachers recognize what’s developmentally correct.
- Parents and teachers need to positively communicate.
- Don’t force children who already read to do irrelevant work.
- Let children explore books.
- Read to children often and make it interesting.
- Reading instruction should not be scary.
- Children need more than a computer to learn how to read.
- Some students need more phonics than others.
- Kindergarten should be an introduction to the wonderful world of reading.
- Phonics might be better after children learn to like books.
- Children should not be cast as reading failures in kindergarten, or ever!
- Reading should quit being used to destroy teachers and public schools.
- Libraries and certified librarians.
It’s time for teachers and parents to take back public school classrooms and create developmentally appropriate reading instruction.
Return the joy of reading to children.
Nancy, I sooo respect all you do for education, but we need to be careful how we talk about phonics. Most people need phonics instruction. The critical piece is pacing. That’s what differentiation is supposed to address. In addition, it must be made clear that systematic phonics is only a small part of a strong reading program. And there is no need for a million dollar McGraw Hill program. A one time purchase of an $18 Words Their Way Black line master booklet—and access to a copier—is all,that is need for children to play with word sorts and games. A fraction of that million dollars can buy classroom libraries and leveled-book shared libraries for an entire school.. As to the NCTQ report, it was very poorly done. However, in my 25 years experience as a K-2 teacher, curriculum coordinator and interventionist, I can attest to the fact that elementary teachers are not leaving their teacher training with the knowledge of how to teach reading. It seems as if most teachers have knowledge of the various theories of how to teach reading, but do not actually receive the training a reading teacher would receive—which should be mandatory for a primary teacher. (D. Scanlon presents an elegantly simple plan for teaching reading strategies, SUNY Albany) I,often wonder as I watch my RTI students break up multisyllabic words using their word family knowledge, What frustration would a student without that knowledge feel with no phonics strategies to call on. I keep coming back to “balance.” Can’t we finally define balanced literacy as a rich reading program with read aloud, free choice reading, readers theatre, shared leveled library for differentiated instruction with a systematic phonics piece?
For starters, I think you miss the points of the post.
1. Children are being pushed to read too soon setting them up for failure..
2. Phonics and reading scores are being used to cast teachers as failures.
Hanford’s articles are very much about this. NCTQ is about this too. Did you look at the donors? Are you aware of the corporate attack on teachers and public education?
As far as RTI, it has been dismissed as not being beneficial to students. This is not my opinion. Please do an online search. Many parents worry it delays students from getting special ed. services.
I taught students with reading disabilities for many years and included a balanced approach. I never said phonics should not be a part of a good reading program. I did a lot of it.
I do believe children need to learn to love books first and become curious about words. Then phonics will make more sense. Phonics helps a lot with spelling and writing. I’d find that argument more convincing.
Not all children need a lot of phonics. It can be very boring to a student who loves reading, although some children won’t mind it and will see it as fun.
As far as ed. schools not teaching reading…could you be more specific? I am trying to learn exactly what ed. schools teach these days. What you mention sounds like some particular scripted reading program.
Teachers should come out of their college programs understanding what’s out there. There is no perfect reading program.
I do believe ed. schools have been influenced by corporate reformers too, especially pushing CBE. I had a lot of rich reading courses in both my bachelor’s and my master’s programs but that was years ago before NCLB.
So, I believe we disagree here, but I appreciate the debate. Thanks for commenting, Kathleen!
P.S. Honestly, if I was a kindergartner and you were trying to get me to break up a multisyllabic word I think I’d drop out then and there!
I think you and Kathleen agreed quite a bit. I don’t think she teaches K. ??
Breaking down multi syllable words helps with older students.
I agree with your article. Too much computerized instruction and not enough local control. Return joy of reading and teaching.
I’m a School librarian and have seen the impact of cuts to library services. Every research study I’ve read shows an impact on reading scores. I also see other problems that testing causes. Our libraries have become testing centers. My students will lose access to my library for a month. In addition, teachers are no longer assigning research projects, it’s all about the test.
Christel, No I don’t think she teaches Kindergarten. But some are pushing phonics at that level too. My attempt to be facetious.
And yet is is our mandated life. Every. Single. Day. Let’s talk about Dibels. My nemesis.
I agree that most of the problems with pushing kids into reading too soon comes directly from National and State mandated standards that are not developmentally appropriate. Kindergarten students need more hands-on instruction and PLAY to progress into a successful reader who ENJOYS reading!!!! Slow down to go fast, as they say!
Yes, Beth. You’re right! Thank you!
Mimi, Thank you!
Many commiserate with you about DIBELS. Do they still use it with RTI?
Ken Goodman edited a book called Examining DIBELS: What It Is and What It Does.
DIBELS is really awful.
OMG dibbled to death. The only thing I do like about it is that kids get to read to an adult and I love to talk to kids
Nancy, I completely agree with J. Mountford that it is a moral imperative that teachers push back on telling parents—and the students—that their,children are “failures” if they do not learn to read in kindergarten. Here’s the bottom line: the federally-mandated standardized tests driving all this is developmentally inappropriate and states use backward design to develop curriculum to match the tests. I believe we need to begin lobbying our congressional representatives to at the very least go back to grade span testing. I think education is going to be a big issue in 2020 and we need educate the people who are in a position to change the test and punish era. You know they will be hearing from the privatizers to get their share of the billions of tax dollars. It may seem early to be talking about 2020, but you know that the hedge funds are getting their lobbyists ready right now. Kathleen
I absolutely agree, Kathleen. It is never too early, and I think the recent teacher marches will continue. That’s why it is so important for teachers and parents not to get sucked into the phonics/whole language debate. They need to be in the same camp. Parents should take that issue up with their child’s teacher and see what they are teaching. My guess is they will find phonics in the mix.
I agree with Kathleen on this one. Nancy, it’s true, there’s no magic bullet and not one program, however, a systematic approach to learning language is essential for some kids. I’m living proof of it myself. Personally, I didn’t see this article as an attack on teachers but rather a criticism of teacher education programs. I do think they lack in teaching teachers how to teach reading.
Most teachers use some program to teach reading. Done well, they supplement it with rich literature, writing, and other language skills. I think you miss also miss what I am saying. That children are likely not doing well in reading because they are being pushed to read before they are developmentally ready. Reading is made into a chore and there is no joy.
Hanford’s criticism of teachers goes beyond reading programs. A criticism of their programs is a criticism against them and their profession. It opens the door to the Teach for America crowd.
I suggest you also read Kathleen’s second comment.
All you have said is true. However, sadly it has trickled down to Pre-Kindergarten, too. In order to keep State funding, Pre-K programs are required to test & track data on 4 year old children. I agree that accountability for learning is needed but when skills are being pushed on children at younger & younger ages it does more harm than good. Instead of focusing on basic readiness skills, – most importantly foundational social skills, In addition to letter/letter sound/number recognition, handwriting, Pre-k students are expected to learn such skills as compound word & beginning sound deletion, number equations, oral math problems,ordinal numbers etc. Children that score below on the tests are subject to intervention activities. We are a full day program so we do have rest time. However, children that are below expectations are not allowed to nap & must be remediated during rest time.. It is stressful for both the children & teachers. When it it ever end?
This is so wrong. Teachers need to just say NO to testing pre K children an segmented night words. It’s long past time to push back and speak up as the professionals. Children who don’t score well in Pre K don’t get to,nap?!? This is CHILD ABUSE AND WE AS TEACHERS NEED TO SAY THAT.
I agree with Kathleen, RK. But you’re right about preschool. There is also a push for cyber schooling. We know what makes a good preschool like we know what makes a good kindergarten. Teachers and parents just need to do what’s right, organize, and attend school board meetings to make their points. Organize.
Hey Nancy – Wonderful Article
I agree with all of your insights. Learning to read should be as spontaneous as learning to talk. One size doesn’t fit all. Children’s natural curiosity leads them to reading. It’s the parents and teacher’s job to guide that natural curiosity. There should be no pressure on a child to read because the stress will kill the curiosity to connect pictures to words. Just like bean sprouts, children grow, learn and mature at different rates as it is with learning to read.
As each of my four daughters was growing up I would read to them starting at age one. One of them, to my surprise, started reading at age three. This was totally organic from her. None of my other daughters grasped reading concepts at that age. It was just intrinsic to her. And so the learning environment should be constructed to allow the natural progression of a child’s brain development. I agree that smaller class sizes will allow the one-on-one necessary for personalized reading development which is why parent-child reading time is so important.
It seems that most of these companies that are trying to sell reading products and programs are creating a false hysteria which is what you are justifiably taking issue with. Some of the “studies” conducted by these companies are almost laughable. Humans have taught their children to read ever since the first cave drawings and reading instruction has evolved along with our species. The techniques used to teach us baby-boomers to read seemed to work okay and I don’t think evolution has advances so far in one generation that we need “technological” innovations to teach reading. Even reading on an electronic device is still just reading.
Now that you have gotten the reading issue settled let’s move on to writing. Good work, Nancy.
Michael Haran
Institute of Progressive Education and Learning.
.
I’m a little confused. Do you have a tech company, Michael?
No. we develop K-12 motivational curriculum and delivery programs. I get quite a lot of insight from your posts and reader comments.
Thanks, Michael.
Nancy – I wholeheartedly agree with your perspective. My younger daughter was actually highly traumatized by this aggressive approach to education, which I agree has actually funneled down into preschool programs who are feeling pressure from schools to have the kids primed to read for kindergarten. In her preschool and early elementary years my older daughter went to a small private school that was not bound by state standards and she was allowed to joyfully approach learning and reading – she is now an advanced reader (and an honors student)- we moved our older daughter into public school in 4th grade – and she was fine and so we thought – why pay for private for our younger one – HUGE mistake – some kids no doubt are ready to read early, but my very bright younger daughter was simply not ready, she became anxious and clingy. We actually pulled her out of her school early in 1st grade when we could see the trauma continue and she too is now at a small private school where the pressure was removed and it has taken us nearly two years to undo the anxiety she developed. She now loves to read. As a former public school employee, I fully understand the pressure the public school system is under – and I don’t fault our local schools, I fault our federal government for thinking that non-educators should be in charge of education. I am just beyond thankful we had the resources to remove our daughter from this situation, but most don’t have a choice. As you can see, I am passionate about this topic and actually have co-written a book that addresses head on the points you make about the pressure schools are under and how this approach is failing children – it is called “No Manual? No Problem! How to Help Your Child Thrive in Today’s World.” in case you are interested in checking it out!
Thanks for sharing, Monica. I’m sorry you had a problem with the school and reading. I hope your daughters will continue to thrive and enjoy reading.
Thank you Nancy she is doing quite well! My co-author and I make the point that teachers have never been more micro-managed than ever before – yet the performance of students is declining – so with all these standards and all this management how can this be? Perhaps the problem is not instruction…. As I said – I do not fault the teachers… we are victim to this broken system… I am grateful that we have options around here and ones where quality teachers are trusted to do their job without micromanagement… 🙂
I would say not to be victims, but organize and speak out at school board meetings. The more the merrier.
I know parents and teachers that speak out at state board meetings too.
Many focus too much on the U.S. Dept. of Ed, but the state level is critical.
I am thrilled to be reading what you have to say ‘Nancy !!!! And all the comments are amazing. I am an elected member of the state board of education in Louisiana! I ran against common core but the first meeting after I took office, we change the name of the common core standards to Louisiana standards. It is so sad to see what is happening to our children and our teachers. I feel so hopeful now that I am reading that people are finding out that common core does not work and will not work. please please keep Informing the public about what is really going on. You are spot on with everything you say.
I’m sorry I missed this, and I am responding late. Thank you, Kathy, and best of luck in Louisiana. It is a great state with caring parents and educators.
Well said! I taught K for 30 years and was and still am deeply saddened at the direction we’ve taken with pressuring our littles before they are ready.
Thank you, Nanci, the current changes go against what we know is developmentally correct for children. I appreciate your speaking out on behalf of kindergartners.
Nancy, I truly believe that the Gateses and the Zuckerburgs and hedgfunds are determined to privatize our schools. That’s why I want children to have the strongest possible reading foundation. This where I am coming from: in the last year I have done a Portland Press Herald podcast based on my letter to the editor giving my reasons for Maine to r peal our Competency-based Diploma law. Then I—and 100 other parents, teachers, principals—testified before the legislature requesting repeal. (It was repealed,). Not long after ESSA implementation, I lobbied Senator Angus King’s office educating them about the terrible effects of yearly testing. I was suggesting that there is the possibility of amending the law. This past month when our standardized testing results were released, the newspaper lead stated that “only 51% of the children in the state can read on grade level. So I wrote another letter to the editor that this was wrong—that “proficiency” is not grade level and then visited Senator Collins office with that message. I regularly talk to anyone who will,listen about SIBs, education scholarships, choice, etc., I know who the NCTQ founders are. It’s BECAUSE I want to thwart all the privatizers that I want all students to get best reading instruction I can. Just because they have chosen phonics as their rallying cry is not a reason for us to reject it. And about RTI. All I can say is, It must not be very good instruction. Who is providing it? Reading teachers or aides? I can only speak to my experience in my school in Maine. We regularly have only 1 or 2 students in RTI in 4th and 5th grade. Any students needing sped services are referred in 1st or 2nd grade, but we continue to see groups of 1st through 5th graders who just a little more time. I have to repeat that it is wonderful to watch how empowering it is to have these students use their phonics/word solving strategies—alongside their context/vocabulary skills.. so, I think we are on the same page. Peace, Kathleen. PS. I know teach 3-5 RTI, hence the multisyllabic word solving. ????PPS I’m currently setting up meetings with our new state and national reps????????
Kathleen, We are pretty much on the same page! I am sorry for being so quick to judge. You have done a lot on behalf of students and public schools and I am glad to know you! Thank you for taking the time to tell of your accomplishments. Tonight for dessert I will eat some humble pie.
Nancy, ????No need for humble pie. It’s hard to convey all the nuances of what we are saying in an email. I detest million dollar CC-aligned programs. (This is marketing speak. They have no idea what they are talking about and they are a little late to the game. Nobody says Common Core anymore—even though the states adopted it and renamed it..) Give me classroom libraries and shared book rooms! And the professional development/coaching to be sure everyone is utilizing them effectively. If schools don’t have access to copiers for word sorts—NOT word searches or worksheets—or shared book rooms, we have a much larger societal problem—equitable funding. Kathleen
Yes. Thank you again, Kathleen.
Provide school libraries (with certified librarians) that offer plentiful lavishly illustrated picture books. Encourage children to draw the stories they read and the stories they invent. Act out stories with props.
Absolutely! Thank you, Sheila!
Brilliant! I couldn’t have said it better! Give the children the opportunity to learn in an exciting rich and nourishing environment which promotes children to learn how to read when they are ready. I am appalled that non-teachers are having so much influence on the curriculum .
I ran a farm in kindergarten, grade 1 & 2 open area classroom in 1972 for 5 years. Reading and writing were naturally learned as animals had to be fed so lists were made, creativity was essential to learning. Every child was reading by the end of Grade one and enjoyed the learning. Personally I am a huge whole language fan!! BTW I taught in Canada!
Thank you, Shirley! It is always nice to hear from Canadians! I share your concerns.
I am 72…everyone in my home read all the time. Aloud and silently. My father told me he was stunned when he realized I was reading street signs, etc. At three because no one had tried to teach me to read. It somehow just happened because that’s what we did…i must have watched the words as my mom and dad read aloud…but I have no memory of learning to read. When its time, kids do. My own read when they were ready…forcibg kids before they are eager is counterproductive…
Words are everywhere, and children are usually curious. Getting lovely picture books into their hands and those of their parents is the best. Thank you, Catherine. I appreciate your sharing your story.
I work with gifted and talented children and the stress with Common Core is felt all over! Gone are the days of enjoying books! Even those poor souls that learned how to read organically at age 3, have to “prove it”. We have fourth graders testing at 12th-grade reading levels only receiving “passing” because they hate the redundancy of the Common Core. Meanwhile, children struggling to learn are forced to compete with children bored out of their wits! Yet all good research tells us if we want kids to learn we need to encourage play, we need to foster hands-on creative problem solving, and most importantly, we need to teach at student readiness levels.
Maria, mentioning students working at a higher level and their difficulties with CCSS is a serious point few mention. Thank you.
Since I had a daughter who went from reading nothing to almost everything in two weeks at the end of her kindergarten year, I have been asking parents when and how their children became readers. The latest tale was a 7 year old who suddenly took up Harry Potter almost spontaneously. Others report their kids learned much later. There is too much difference between children to use standards. VAM postulated a linear development of students and then punished teachers when such a pattern did not materialize.
The best list addition I can think of is to allow well trained teachers to make decisions in concert with parents. Part of the training would be to teach teachers to tell pushy administration to stuff it.
My son was one of those sudden readers. When he was In first or second grade I was reading him Harry Potter, and one day he took it to school. That night when we started reading he was way ahead, said he read it himself during reading time in school and he had! I myself started reading at three. My parents read to me all the time and I did the same with my own kids. One of my threenis not a reader admin he doesn’t choose to donor for fun, but he read everything he was assigned in school and loves science. I wish there was a way to help gets get read to at home as early as possible. It just doesn’t happen everywhere.
I bet it was exciting when he came home reading on his own!
I hope children get exposure to great picture books and fun reading material, but not be pushed to read early.
Thank you, Svea!
Roy, I agree. I taught reading remediation in a resource class. I usually had the same students three years, unless we mainstreamed them out.
It was always interesting to look at their end of the year standardized test scores. Some made little progress in 6th gr. but jumped in 7th gr. I’m glad I was not penalized for the 6th gr. scores.
Because school libraries have become testing sites, students lose access to their libraries and their professional librarians who promote literacy, teach them how to research, evaluate information and acquire information. This is one of the most devastating consequences of The Common Core and manic testing environments in our schools.
Schools should not lose their libraries to CC. That truly is devastating!
I am so in agreement with you, and I appreciate your writing. It is my opinion that testing, and therefore CC standards are the crux of the push to get students to read at such early ages. Everything in schools is viewed and taught with the test in mind—everything. I am sick of that focus, and I am so sad for a generation of kids who will suffer because of the corporate influence on education, instead of listening to child experts and educators.
Thank you, Dawn. I don’t like CC, but the push for children to read too early began much earlier with NCLB. I just think that needs to be said.
Fawniqz? How stupid. Standard English has 1,030 ways in which to render 40 basic phonemes. It might work with Latin-derived words but much less so for the original word-stock that young children mostly use.
In Scandinavia, far more humane school systems don’t deliberately teach to read until age seven, unless the child shows an earlier proclivity. In Finland, at least 60% of children are given special ed (if that’s what it really is) attention at one time or another. In other words, if there’s a glitch, it’s time for a cognitive code blue. Pile on until the added stimulation revives the mind. Here, it’s pass them on.
One of my children was reading fluently by December of her first grade year. The other three not until after midway through second grade. How I came to resent all of the worried, ignorant teachers and administrators at so many conferences who seemed not to have a glimmer about the brains entrusted to them.
When academics are fear-driven, the poison sinks into every relationship.
Academics is certainly being driven by fear from the outside. Thanks, William,
Who can convince these apparent do-gooders that the absolute bedrock of kindergarten reading is continuing to focus on the sheer JOY of stories read or told by someone who shares the passion? If this is undervalued, especially for the minority (and they will always be there) who struggle with the mechanics of reading, society must accept the judgement that it has failed in this regard. The moral imperative to reject the misguided advice and meddling of the powerful rests with educators.
Thanks, John! Yes. You’re right. Teachers and parents. Many parents have worked to address the draconian testing situation here. Teachers are speaking out more in school districts across the nation. I hope it is not too late.
Standards and proficiency based learning are not the problem – expecting all kids to learn at the same pace is. Schools that have learning targets that are shared with students and support their individual learning pace see those learners thrive.
It depends. Who is writing and setting the standards? You sound like you are fine with students following the program online. Thanks for your comment, but we disagree.
Soon after children become aware of others, they start to compare themselves to others. Do we not contribute to that problem by constantly comparing students of a particular age to an attainment of a particular score on a test that is supposed to “measure” proficiency with relation to a standard. But we cannot know. We cannot measure, for there is no unit of measure.
So a standard is just an idea, a feeling about a subject, a perception that is cloudy. Let us find another word that describes behavior.
Great point! Comparing students used to be discouraged, and I am still puzzled who gave the O.K. to permit data walls. Thanks, Roy.
Cathy, the standards are arbitrary and decided upon my adults who are not education or child development experts. Why does a child need to think, read, write, and process like an adult does, at such early ages? By forcing the learning in this way, and having tests upon tests to “prove” their abilities, the true nature of learning gets shoved aside, and curiosity and experience does not feed the learner. Perhaps you have seen the latest statement accredited to Mae Jamison, regarding the lack of hands-on learning opportunities in schools? When everything a teacher is forced to do is about meeting standards, and preparing for writing correctly (notice I didn’t say deeply) on a test, students lose . . . and lose . . . and lose.
Thank you, Dawn! Great points!
Nancy, your article was spot on. What ” we” are doing to children all in the name of test scores is a crime. I see children every day who walk the halls and hate school. I have encountered more students this year who tell me they hate reading and my heart breaks a little every time. Thank you for all you do for teachers everywhere!
That is very sad.
I appreciate you.
There isn’t adequate room for all I’d like to add, so a few bullet points will have to do.
The vast majority of children will learn to read without any “reading instruction.”
Phonics First was a corporate-driven propaganda effort entirely contrived to make money.
There is no “debate” between phonics and whole language. Reading is both. Meaning is encoded in symbols. One can apprehend the meaning and thereby make sense of the symbols and/or figure out the symbols and make sense of the meaning. This is what happens quite naturally with most children.
The absurd argument, made by many bureaucrats and so-called reformers, is that children who don’t read fluently by 3rd grade will fall behind in all aspects of school This is a self-inflicted would, as the curricula thereafter requires reading and leaves some children needlessly frustrated. It is like leaving some children standing by the side of the tracks as a train pulls away from the station. Slow the damn train down and all children will thrive. I led a school for 19 years and watched scores of kids who didn’t read fluently until 4th, 5th or 6th grade. Treated with loving patience, they soared, loved books and devoured learning for the balance of school years.
Later readers are harmed by an idiotic system that ignores the reality of child development and wrongheadedly assumes that all children develop in the same ways at the same time. As I used to quip, it is like beating a child who doesn’t walk at 13 months, even though we all know that first walking steps may occur at 9 months or 18 months and it makes no difference at all – unless we cripple the child.
This is lovely! Thank you, Steve.
When Reading instruction is delivered the way the brain was designed to learn the written word, children will learn to crack the code and reading fluency develops.
It can take years to learn spoken language (starting before age 1). Then sound recognition must be taught. Then sound to symbol recognition. Only then can the brain begin to develop the orthographic map.
Children can be taught the components to reading early (sound recognition is important first step and starts early). They can be read too to develop vocabulary and hear what it sounds to like to be a fluent reader. They should be allowed to play and develop social skills and imagination in pre-k kindergarten!
The issue is that schools across the nation are trying to teach whole language, not the English language.
They are requiring children to memorize words (groups of unknown symbols) of which they have not learned the code!
It’s one of the most frustrating things for a child to do. It must stop!
Balanced literacy/whole language is not teaching children to read, it is a way to keep children from developing the skills to read appropriately!
Once you have been taught the skills to crack the code, You can read anything in the English language regardless of knowing what the word means. Vocabulary will develop over time as it should as will fluency.
Balanced literacy/whole language is about helping children learn to read. No teacher would intentionally keep a child from learning to read! Most use phonics and whole language.
And your idea that anyone with a reading problem can easily “crack the code” once they get phonics is false. I taught reading remediation for many years. Phonics can be helpful but it doesn’t always fix a child’s reading difficulties.
Nancy – what reading remediation program did you use? I benefited very much from the type of approach that Molly describes. Unfortunately, I was in my 30s before this happened. It is now a component of how I teach reading/spelling remediation.
A variety of materials and resources along with SRA material for reading, Morphographic Spelling, Learning Strategies from Lawrence, KS, and Scholastic Scope Magazines which my students loved. We also read novels together. High school we worked on career material too. We always did journaling and worked on writing. In high school we had access to PLATO for review on weak areas. My students had IEPs for learning disabilities.
Back when Common Core was in the later planning stages and was being touted to the public, they published lists of all the educators and various associations who had endorsed the program. Blatantly missing from all the endorsements were clinical Child Development Specialists – you know, those people trained in determining what is and is not developmentally appropriate for the average child of any given age. That omission told me everything I needed to know about Common Core.
Yes. It’s flawed. They put it in schools anyway and it goes all the way to the College Board.
Thanks, Debora!
Defaming teachers and deprofessionalization of teachers is indeed a problem. However, the link provided in the sentence “What Hanford doesn’t mention is the name of Bethlehem’s new $962,000 reading program by McGraw Hill” links to a totally reasonable article about getting kids to read by 3rd grade (NOT Kindergarten, as the author of the current piece implies) and to learn very important mental math facts. Besides, kids should learn to read by the end of kindergarten. When they don’t, it’s not the teacher’s fault. It is due to a lack of enrichment at home, toxic lead in the water in Michigan, etc. Teachers can help by encouraging families to do certain things at home, but teachers can’t fix society. Stop the blame game, then teachers will be open to curriculum from Singapore or whatever. I have seen with my own children that despite my fears, Common Core math is totally awesome and creates a strong foundation in mental math. Not sure yet about the reading/writing curriculum, as we have had to implement our own spelling program at home. Accountability measures need to stop. We all need to work together.
Getting children to read now begins in kindergarten! That’s when the McGraw Hill program will start. My point.
And saying children should read by the end of kindergarten is worrisome. There is no developmental basis or proof that this is best. As I say, most of us who are older learned formal reading beginning in first grade. Finland starts reading instruction later.
I agree about lead and lack of enrichment, but disagree about Common Core.
Emma, I assume you are not a teacher….and therefore are not aware of what teachers do know with regards to reading instruction and child development, beyond your own chld(ren). Just because a curriculum is touted to be stellar certainly does not mean it is.
I hate lists like the one this article ended with because they degenerate into do’s and dont’s that will never apply to everyone.
For example: “Kindergarten should be an introduction to the wonderful world of reading.” No! I’d agree that kindergarten curricula ought to introduce to the wonderful world of reading, but the real introduction ideally starts years earlier with storybooks read to a child by parents and loved ones.
I agree that reading is pushed too early for many; but I also had a daughter who was self-decoding phonetics at age 3. Her younger brother was 8 before he discovered a reason to read, paradoxically it was a video game that required a lot of reading to keep up the story line! At that point his test scores showed a gain of three years reading comprehension in four months.
I have given a lot of thought to this issue. I have wondered why one-room school houses with multiple ages and only one teacher commonly produced results with better efficiency than modern classrooms. My solution is not politically viable—Americans want their schools to be daycare & sports clubs in addition to fundamentals—but it would produce much better students at a much lower cost. DO AWAY WITH GRADE LEVELS! That’s it. No grade levels based on birth dates!
In my plan, each child is “entitled” to ten years of taxpayer funded education, and any beyond that is up to the student to pay for (or find a private scholarship). But students could start any time they are ready and go as far as they wished taking courses based on mastery rather than grade level. We’d be graduating some very competent students.
For most,* a child could start at any age before and up to 8 if he/she passes a readiness evaluation. This means all public-funded education would end at 18, (but for a child who begins at 5, it would end at 15.) Classes are given by skill level; if a child can handle algebra at 10, they are given the opportunity, If they need remedial writing at 11, they are placed at that level. There may be some children “starting school” at 8 who can already read at a middle school level; that’s fine. They will be placed according to skill level. If a student completes high school competency early, like in 7 or 8 years instead of 10, some form of compensation could transfer to college or trade school. Currently, there is so much review and overlap wasted in trying to keep age-levels together that if every child could move ahead as soon as the current work is mastered, it would cut off about two years of total schooling time.
*That would be the plan for most. Some developmental delays that show up in young children often do benefit from early attention, There could be programs that address that. But for most children, gearing public education to their readiness instead of their biological age will solve many learning issues. Can you imagine how much easier a teacher would have it if all her students were at the same learning level? No waiting for the slow kids; they’d be in the level below. No bored advanced kids that need a teacher’s extra time; they’d be in the level ahead. If a child is in third level math and fifth level reading, fine—they are allowed to advance at the level of skill. mastery. I’ve tutored a lot of children; grade levels based on ages are bunk. It frustrates expectations, limits opportunity, and wastes resources.
Of course reading should begin earlier. Was referring to the beginning of formal schooling.
Also, I would argue that our current educational system is much more advanced than the one-room school house. The good old days weren’t always so good! Students learn more today than ever before.
You can certainly work on phonemic awareness through play in pre-k and Kindergarten. Had the pre-k teacher realized my son had no phonemic awareness even though he could memorize a book and summarize a plot, he wouldn’t have fallen so far behind his classmates by 4th grade. Some kids need direct instruction and systematic phonics – you can screen for that. Some kids might be okay with not very balanced literacy. Respect the neuroscience!
I studied child development and disabilities and taught students with learning disabilities for many years. Some of my coursework involved neuroscience in regard to language. I taught phonics too and had no objection doing so. Most teachers teach some phonics and they have for years.
What is a concern is seeing how so many children are pushed to read too soon and beyond what they are developmentally capable of doing. This has nothing to do with phonics!
However, I also worry about giving young children phonics instruction before they know what it is used for.
And none of this means I lack respect for neuroscience.
We an assess for and teach phonemic awareness skills through play. Had our pre-k teacher done so, my son could have been saved from anxiety and depression and gotten the proper education. Respect the neuroscience. Some kids need direct instruction, others can read with not very balanced literacy approaches. Screen them. Interview parents. Did they have a hard time learning to read? Were they diagnosed with dyslexia? It’s not rocket science. http://educationpost.org/lets-put-the-science-of-reading-in-teachers-hands-so-kids-arent-left-behind/
You mention the National Reading Panel. Their findings were debunked. Please check on the writings of Joanne Yatvin who was one of the original panel members.
If a child has a known disability when they enter preschool, extra care needs to be taken. But pushing phonics on pre-k students is a mistake in my book.
Who debunked their findings? Please include references.
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20164000/ I know this is involved. Here’s the Ed. Week write-up.https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/11/11/study-rti-practice-falls-short-of-promise.html
So much pressure now comes from Fountas and Pinnell’s reading benchmarks. In fact, they just increased the levels in the name of rigor about 2 years ago. Kinder students are expected to be at an instructional E by the end of kinder and teachers feel the stress of getting their students to that benchmark.
Also, I am a big believer in RtI— I have witnessed the academic gap significantly decrease in the primary years— when it’s executed correctly. Sadly, I think the model is frequently misunderstood.
I would like to see the research that indicates the closure of the academic gap due to RTI. Most of the research I have seen says otherwise. Do a search if you don’t believe me.
Bravo!!
I’m not a teacher, I’m a parent of a college freshman and high school junior. So these are my comments as a layperson.
I think, a lot of this is driven by a fundamental misunderstanding of opportunities and success (and parents have to own to our culpability in this)
There is this fear that if my 5 year old can’t read but his friend is devouring chapter books? My kid will never read and is doomed.
I was advised to hold back my son in pre school as a “young 5” because he wasn’t reading or talking clearly. He didn’t have the best fine motor skills.
I talked to our pediatrician who said there is nothing wrong, so I sent him to Kindergarten on schedule.
He had a very experienced Kindergarten teacher who had a play based philosophy. He could not read in Kindergarten. She would reassure me that this is normal.
He started reading in the middle of 1st grade. Did this matter? No. He’s an electrical engineering major doing very very well.
However? If we didn’t have the teacher we had (not to mention school, public, we’re a k-12 public school family)? It could have gone south very easily. He not reading in Kindergarten was treated as normal by the school. Because? It is.
I think these fears, which I think has a lot to do with the insanity that is college acceptances, really hurts our kids. If my kid doesn’t read right after she/he walks? Might as well pack it in because the kid is going nowhere in life. Which is ridiculous and harmful to society because we’re so afraid to fail that we won’t innovate.
We need to trust the professionals. The teachers. They know who is in need of serious intervention and who is just a normal 5 year old.
We’re using the most advanced little kids as the measuring stick for everyone.
Oh gracious! Maya! This is such an important point.
There are some people that for whatever reason don’t like to read! They learn it so they can get to what they really like to do! And they can thrive and go on to do great things.
Certainly they need to be able to read to do well, but it just isn’t what interests them.
Thank you for sharing!
Emily Hanford is a typical “journalist” who creates false dichotomies by trying to pit “one side” against “the other.” Then she chooses sides with “science.” If one digs even just a little bit into the “science” she says backs one side, one finds that that “science” is not at all “scientific.” It is based on a rudimentary understanding of how the brain works. The truth is, we don’t know how the brain works and the tools we currently use to “measure” brain “activity” are crude – at best.
There is no dichotomy between creating text rich environments where students experience real, meaningful communication between human beings in the context of a classroom and without – and phonics.
Yes, in English, phonemic awareness is one important tool. (In Chinese, it is not. By the way, this destroys the “brain” research being done with “phonics” immediately, because, it is apparent, that billions of people can learn to read and write without this tool.) But phonemic awareness is just one tool.
Overemphasizing any one tool is destructive to the uneven pace at which individual humans learn the complex task fo communicating effectively with other human beings. No tool is perfect, All tools are useful in different contexts. Experiencing a rich variety of contexts and learning by trial, error, reflection and trying again what happens no matter what new context a student finds themself in or what tool is being applied.
Great points, Paul!
I am curious to find out if the Wonder program includes a lot of phonics. So much talk about brain “science,” yet how scientific is that program?
How do you view the work of Stanislas Dehaene for beginning readers? https://youtu.be/25GI3-kiLdo How do we support both language and identity those who may struggle when attaching symbols to sounds so words can be read?
Look. I am a strong advocate for everyone and anyone getting the care and supports they need to succeed at reading. Indeed, we know for certain that exposure to reading birth-1yo is essential for the development of literacy, We all know that class, working schedules and educational level, of parents plays a central role in outcomes. Indeed, our schools should be forced, by being given ample resources, to deal with these societal issues.
Also, there are clinically identifiable learning disorders. We have a good deal of knowledge about how to support students with many of these disorders. Those should be implemented.
An understanding of phonics is an important tool for students to gain as they learn to read.
But decoding is not reading. That’s the bottom line.
Making meaning of text is reading. And phonetic decoding is just a tool. Not an end in and of itself.
The tool must be used within the context of meaning making. And the classroom should be a meaning making machine.
Not a machine to practice using tools with no reference to what they are used for.
The dubious science I am referring to, by the way. Is the brain “imaging” techniques that are used to back up the claims of Hanford.
I investigated this avenue of research trying to quantify the effects of a “progressive” “emergent” curriculum on brain development.
The brain researcher I pitched that idea to, a guy who creates implants into the brain that allow profoundly deaf people to hear, laughed at the complexity of my idea. He said the research into the brain and its functioning is utterly rudimentary and could not lead to any quantifiable data for me to analyze.
And Hanford is trying to create an entire model of reading based on this rudimentary understanding of the brain.
Mind you — [people have been reading and writing for 10,000 – 15,000 years. There are methods of instruction that work. I know this because humanity has not decreased its reliance on reading and writing.
Elites since Egyptian times have successfully taught their offspring this skill. Study how they did it and you’ll know how we should do it. But mark the word — “elites.”
As a literacy activist who supports and promotes the 1000 Books Before Kindergarten Program, I think a good direction for kindergartens would be for children to hear 1000 stories before first grade! Author Mem Fox, in her book Reading Magic, says children need to hear 1000 stories before they ever expected to decode words on a page.
Since many, maybe even most, children do not enter with a foundation of having heard 1000 stories, why not read aloud 1000 stories IN kindergarten and level the learning-to-read playing field for first grade ?!
There are 180 school days, if they heard six books a day imagine how different learning to read in first grade would be. If we stop “teaching” reading and start “doing” reading in kindergarten it will leave time for outdoor play, imaginary play and developmentally appropriate activities that will build the foundation they need for learning to read “in first grade.”
I know this might sound good, but it seems like too much pressure.
Why say how many books children should read by X time? Certainly, letting children choose books they like at the library or bookstores, and providing a rich literary environment at home is important. But reading books shouldn’t be made into a marathon. I would not call that magic.
Also, it isn’t uncommon for children to like to hear one book read to them repeatedly. While it might be tiresome to parents doing the reading, there’s some benefit to this.
I like what you write about play though. Thanks for commenting, Pam.
So why are so many children struggling with reading and writing? Can we really blame common core? It hasn’t been around that long. We have seen a major decline for years. Are children being pushed to read at an earlier age despite the addition of common core standards? My answer would be yes! So what’s the real problem? I think several things attribute to the fact that we are seeing more and more children struggle with reading and writing. I think one of the problems goes back to their early years. They have more visual stimulation ( technology) less auditory stimulation, less time for play and discovery, Our children’s parents are less familiar with simple songs, poems; rhymes that help their young children develop. We are busy so we do a .ot for our children to save time. Basically, we need to focus more on building curiosity, independence, and confidence in our young children starting at birth. Put our money, time resources and research into our families as a whole and we can begin to solve our decline. Fyi…. parents put down technology… go and play with your child outside. Learn songs, rhymes and visit your library and the abundance of FREE programs they offer from birth on…
It is hard to convince any parent here in NYS who’s 8th grader is now in their 7th year of Common Core math and ELA instruction that it “hasn’t been around that long”. Millions of students across the country know little else.
Common Core standards have forced a tectonic shift in the very reason for reading: find decontextualized evidence to support a random “claim”
When the reason for reading is bastardized and coerced, it becomes a painful, redundant, and pointless experience. The mistreatment of reading in CC classrooms has ruined reading for all the right reasons wherever students of Common Core encounter it.
????????Yes. You said it all. Lobby your congresspeople to go back to grade span testing and developmentally appropriate tests.
– I disagree with most aspects of this post.
– First, the reading gap does not “reflect the developmental differences found in children when they are forced to read too soon.” Unless you believe that poverty is a developmental difference, the causes for the gap in reading ability are not due to “development.” While I agree that forcing a child to do something before they are ready can sometimes lead to undue stress, I don’t believe that it is the place of any educator to decide that a child “isn’t ready.” Many of us were moved to be educators because we remember that time a teacher thought we couldn’t do something—and we sought to make sure this would never happen in our classrooms. Heck, sometimes parents underestimate kids and it’s the educators who see what a kid can really do! I have a problem with the word “ready” because often what we see as a child being unready isn’t what is really there.
– Secondly, why do I have a problem with this post? Delaying a child from reading has grave consequences, such as depriving them of a full understanding of other classes’ content and the world around them. While waiting to teach a child to read may be right in some (extreme!) cases, I believe that it takes a very special case and an ongoing and in-depth relationship with the child to make this choice. Furthermore, this choice to delay the child should continually be revisited by re-assessing the benefits and drawbacks of the decision. I’m tempted to say that none of us have the right to delay a child from learning to read, especially not as educators who see multiple kids for limited times of the day.
– I’m not sure that forcing kindergarteners to read before they are “ready” means that many will fail. These children may fail for two reasons 1) if they are left to rely on context clues or what a word “looks like” to understand a passage without some ability to sound tricky words out or 2) if they are forced to “get” phonics too quickly without reading something that is interesting, maybe by an impatient and unkind teacher. Both 1) and 2), I think we can agree, are bad teaching, plain and simple. That is all I will say about the dual importance of phonics and supporting a love of reading.
– Finally, resisting Common Core and a study by NCTQ may be fair, although I am personally not aware of the intricacies of these organizations, but it would be terrible to resist any and all attempts to measure the effectiveness of teachers and schools. Children in this country are not being educated equally, and this is not fair. Maybe our existing measures of what is effective should be remedied. An us vs. them mentality when talking about public schools and everyone else working to reform education is counterproductive. This “fight to protect public schools,” especially when done at all costs, takes attention away from our kids, who should always come first.
When did I say a child should be delayed from reading if they are eager and ready? That would be asinine. A qualified teacher with small enough class sizes, should be able to easily tell how a child is progressing at reading. Teachers encourage children to read, they don’t hold them back. And they should never underestimate, but they should introduce reading as a joyful activity.
I’m talking about kindergarten being the new first grade. I know parents who believe their child’s failing because they can’t read at age 3! School reformers have pushed the reading card with testing and have used reading scores to claim that schools fail.
You’re right that poverty affects a child’s ability to read.
And public schools are meant to serve ALL children. That is a constant theme in all my posts. School reform is about school privatization.
You might want to familiarize yourself about what school privatization means. I think that might clear things up.
Katie, Please read my above response. You seem to think I want to “underestimate” a child’s abilities. I am talking about normal development. Good teachers don’t hold children back. And I never said teachers should not be evaluated. I’m not sure you read the list. Thanks for caring about children.
So true. We are pushing these precious babies way before they are developmentally ready to read. We have lost sight of what they really need because government has tied teachers hands behind their backs and they can’t teach the way that kids that age learn best…by developmentally appropriate curriculum that include centers, small group instruction and the fact that the teachers that stand in those classrooms every day know what the needs of their students are. The lawmakers have no idea what kindergarten kids need. I know it isn’t pushing standardized testing and crazy amounts of time on the computer. Let them be little, for their only that way for a while. My constant reminder when I was teaching in kindergarten was, “Our children deserve the very best we have to give them.” Too bad those trying to destroy public education don’t get it or even care. I’m done with my rant for the day.
Thank you for your rant, Brenda. It is appreciated.
Running Records and F & P assessments of students reading books start in K. Students also are asked to read (and write) by the self and with a partner starting immediately in K. This pushes teachers to push students to read fluently and comprehend as well as write. Of course, they can’t do any of that so they develop lots of bad habits that hinder them not just in K but in grades beyond that. They also often develop anxiety and a disdain for reading and writing. This type of instruction is the norm in most schools-much more than phonics instruction. How is this inqppropriate instruction rectified?
That’s terrible! Forcing children to read in kindergarten by any method, and with assessments, is wrong. Thanks for sharing, Nora.
I don’t disagree with all that you’re saying (and I’m Canadian so I can’t comment on your school system), and I’m very open to teacher’s who want to try different reading methods to find what works for each child (not all struggling readers are dyslexic and so what we know works for dyslexics may not be appropriate for another child). But what is sadly lacking here is an understanding of what it’s actually like to be dyslexic. As a dyslexic adult, and parent of a dyslexic child, this ideal “love of reading” is misplaced. I will never love the act of reading, though I do read well, I love books and love story telling in all formats (audio, visual, etc.). What both my daughter and I needed was not the chance to “explore books” or to wait until we were older, but to be taught reading in a way that works for us. Handing us a book and telling us to read, or teaching us to guess at words, or to look at the pictures, is what is cruel — not reading instruction. Effective reading instruction works and it’s empowering. Further, to wait for grade 3 to catch a learning disability such as dyslexia, as schools in Canada do, means you are already behind in most subjects.
After reading so many articles like yours, by so many experts with influence, I’ve decided that you are well-meaning in trying not to force kids into reading too early and not to stigmatize them (we obviously don’t want to go back to the days of dunce caps!), but you inadvertently impose your own ability with reading onto others. This blind spot, or bias, actually hurts our children, and from experience, it also makes going forward in life much harder.
I hope going forward in 2019, we can all open our minds and be intellectually curious about how to teach reading, and how to support students with learning disabilities. A start is to ask them!
I taught students with reading disabilities for many years including phonics. I am not against phonics instruction.
Hanford’s articles are implying that teachers don’t know how to teach reading because they don’t know the science of reading. I disagree. Teachers are being pushed to teach reading with questionable methods too soon.
I am against saying a child should be reading fluently in kindergarten which is developmentally inappropriate. Giving children books and forcing them to read is just as terrible as putting phonics sheets in front of them!
Furthermore, pushing phonics (or books) on children with the intent to make them read earlier than developmentally appropriate could result in a child hating reading. It’s not so much the phonics, as the fear that reading must be mastered before the child has an opportunity to learn that reading is enjoyable.
Hearing stories read in a warm accepting environment, and letting children explore books, without pushing them, will make reading less scary. Formal reading instruction used to begin in first grade. Finland didn’t start until 3rd grade and they’ve had the highest test scores in the world!
I wonder when it was discovered that you and your daughter had dyslexia. Usually there are markers that give parents and teachers clues early on. I am glad you like books now. Thank you.
Thank you for your response & for clarifying some of these points. Sometimes I feel these discussions are too binary…when often we agree on many things.
I saw she was very smart, but having trouble learning her alphabet, and even reading simple words in those little picture books we have for babies, early on … I guess about kindergarten (so 5-6 years old). By grade 3 she was falling behind at school, and was very frustrated. So that’s when we got a private assessment and diagnosis. As for me, I wasn’t diagnosed until later in life, but was identified as poor reader in primary school by my teacher. In those days, we were taught with phonics, and I do think it helped, but not entirely as dyslexia can’t be “cured” (as I’m sure you know). My mother, now 85, got a call from the teacher saying “she can’t read! take her to the eye doctor.” Of course, my eyes were fine. 😉
For my daughter, an O-G based program worked wonders.
I agree. And thank you for sharing. Many parents love Orton-Gillingham. I’m glad it helped your daughter and that you both overcame your difficulties. It’s tough. Adaptation is critical. You might appreciate a book called Learning Outside the Lines by Jonathan Mooney and David Cole. They give some neat tricks to help with reading and learning. Mooney has dyslexia. Cole-ADHD. I think the book would be helpful to anyone. Very best. Stay in touch.
@AMB – Bravo! I’m so happy to hear that you were able to get your daughter help as well as get her identified early one. It can be critical! I was trained in Slingerland which is a classroom adaptation of OG. I think it’s terrific. Most educational practices use two modalities. I have seen in many cases that the addition of the kinesthetic motor movement has done wonders. In fact, Slingerland taught me how to spell and decode multi-sylabbic words; something I was never taught how to do nor did I pick up as a kid where they used bare bones phonics & whole language. I wish I had learned these skills sooner.
Nancy – do you know that one of Jonathon Mooney’s Project Eye to Eye partners is Teach for America? I know some of his work and believe that he primarily focuses on esteem which is important, however, kids with LD also need a systematic, structured approach to reading, spelling, writing, comprehensions, etc. No where on his website do I see that information reflected. I’m wondering where he stands on remediation. Do you happen to know?
No. I did not know that about TFA. Of course by my recent post you see that I am not a fan of TFA. I also don’t agree with everything about him. I believe he supports choice and school reform.
That doesn’t change my opinion about his book. I think it has some helpful suggestions. Thanks for commenting, Cindy. That was nice.
Often times, children do not enter K with diagnosed dyslexia. It is through targeted and appropriate assessment of pre-literacy skills…Phonological Awareness and Phonics… that children may be identified as challenged and in need of structured literacy instruction, as well as ongoing progress monitoring. The “wait and see” approach…or the thought that all children learn to read as a result of skills developed through “play” is inaccurate. In this day and age…with research-based evidence…early screening, assessment, targeted instruction, and progress monitoring makes sense for specific, identified students. #nochildleftbehind #1in5 #dyslexia awareness
I don’t like so much assessment in kindergarten. Most parents and teachers can tell if a child is not making sounds well, rhyming, or if they aren’t interested in books. Plus, kindergarten is said to be the new first grade. They don’t start formal reading until 3rd grade in Finland and they do great! I can’t help but wonder how many students wind up with reading difficulties because they are pushed to read too soon. My take. But thank you for commenting. I value your opinion even if we disagree.
Thank you so much for writing this, and I hope it’s not too late for comments. I have just become aware of this Emily Hanford person on Twitter and have had a few arguments with her and her fans and am alarmed at their bot-like responses. It’s like the Reading War never ended and they pick up where Lousia Moats left off circa 2003.. They just scream “science” and “we have proven brain science” etc and do not acknowledge any other viewpoint. I can tell from trying to have a discussion with Hanford that she really does not know squat about reading; she seems like front-person for some kind of profitable force. I do disagree with you a bit about her quoting the National Reading Panel Report though, because I know quite a bit about that (and remember all the controversies) the report, which is questionable, actually, in the end gave support for balanced instruction. The problems came when the phonics brigade, lead by Lousia Moats, ran around the country distorting the findings. The Summary of the Report states that all students benefit from Synthetic phonics, when actually the report itself found that all kinds of systematic phonics were the same. It also showed that kids taught with a code method in Kindergarten did better than kids taught with a Whole Language approach on word reading alone. By second grade, the kids taught only code nose-dived because comprehension was tested beyond word reading. Anyway, when I presented the real facts from the NRP report, she backed away from it and launched into the questionable “brain science” angle.. These people are dangerous and try to assert that poverty does not matter, as long as you give the right kind of reading instruction (synthetic phonics). Hanford even posted a serious question about teaching a hungry child how to read–as in the best way to do that–not how amoral it is to have hungry children in the richesr country in the world. Anyway, I see you have a newer related article and i will check that out and I hope you stay on this topic because I’m afraid that many of the champions against this kind of approach seem to consider the Reading War over and have moved on to other things. Might have to call them back.
Thanks, Nancy. I appreciate your well-written thoughts and ideas and it is obvious you understand what’s happening. As far as the NRP you are correct about their findings. But they did not review the studies like they should have and it is amazing how the NRP is always seen as phonics reform. Here’s an article. Just for your FYI. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2003/04/30/33yatvin.h22.html Thank you so much for commenting.
Very best!
Well said. For those interested in a gentler, but still thorough approach, this book has recently been released and is an excellent guide for teaching literacy in the early grades. http://waldorfinspirations.com/index.php/the-roadmap
Thank you for your comment. I am not fond of Waldorf since it is based on the beliefs of Rudolph Steiner who believed in Anthroposophy. The schools don’t push children to read early, but some of their beliefs are controversial. I don’t think these schools should receive public funds as charter schools. I worry about the extreme ideas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/13/nyregion/measles-outbreak-new-york.html
In my research into reading during earlier decades, I find that in the 1960’s, first graders were expected to learn 250 words. Today the standard is 340 words. It is obvious by the numbers failing (52% in my county), more is not always better than less. I am certain that other factors impact early reading, such as lack of phonics, literature approach, and too much screen time (children AND parents).
Grade levels are about MATURITY, not age! That makes your set up for failure comment irrelevant!!
Not at all. When you make all children learn at the same level when they aren’t ready is devastating. Sure some children learn to read early before kindergarten, but many won’t.
Nancy, thanks for your post. I’m a secondary English teacher, and I can relate to so much of what you’ve shared. Sadly, by the time students get to my classroom, most of them hate reading. I attribute this, in part, to the rise of Common Core and the state-mandated testing that came with it. These kids are GOOD readers, they just don’t LIKE to read. It’s so sad. They have been taught that reading is a means to an end (getting a good score on a test) rather than that reading is fun! I love your recommendation that teachers should be able to assess reading the way we choose instead of through the means politicians prefer. I am a professional in my field. I went through a highly esteemed teacher preparation program at the University of Georgia. Perhaps I know a little bit about assessing reading? A multiple choice test is NOT the best way! And it is certainly not the best way to determine teacher effectiveness. I was recently asked to identify gifted students who are “underperforming” on state reading tests. The criteria for “underperforming” was that they showed less than 50% growth. (Growth percentiles are how schools earn CCRPI points in Georgia.) I had to put several students on the list who scored in the 99th%tile, who made strong A’s in my class, and who have a lexile level of 1400 plus. But because they hadn’t made the “growth” the state says they should, they are now considered “underperforming.” Ridiculous! Something’s got to give! We are creating a generation of kids who hate to read, who are tested to death, and who are told that their best is not good enough. So sad!
Oh my GOSH Emily – your reply speaks my language! It has become an insult to any of us working in schools and with kids… we all may know a little something about educating kids, inspiring kids…. My older daughter went to a private school where she over time learned to love reading, we made the mistake of putting our younger one in public school for all of kindergarten and 8 weeks of 1st grade, when we pulled her because she HATED school, it has taken two years in a private setting to get her to see that school can be a wonderful place, and she now enjoys all aspects of learning!
School reformers have taken over public schools and foisted bad policies into the classroom.
I’m glad a private school worked for your child, unfortunately, private schools aren’t always transparent and we have no way of knowing how much progress a child makes other than what parents observe. They are often expensive, and don’t always accept children with disabilities.
We really need to get it right in public schools which serve most of America’s children.
Absolutely Nancy – totally agree – as an educator – I did carefully vet the schools my kids attend(ed) and they do use measures for student progress, such as the ERB’s… my main point is that they have the leeway to not have to jump through the hoops of the state mandated testing, and often times teachers are afforded the respect they deserve, and in our case the education was and is developmentally appropriate and allows for enough movement and recess time as well. I agree with your take on reform – now we need a leader who is going to support it and a Secretary of Education who was actually an educator!
Thank you, Monica!
Thank you, Emily, You speak for many teachers who are fed up with the way the curriculum has been manipulated by outsiders who know little about students and reading instruction. So much has to do with testing and few of these outsiders consider the negative impact you describe. I appreciate this. Thank you for taking the time to describe what so many teachers think and feel.
Nancy, I truly enjoyed reading your post! I teach language arts to upper elementary students, and have seen many bright, inquisitive students grow to despise reading due to the intense amount of pressure placed on them to read that began at a very young age. I agree that kindergarten is too young to be applying pressure on students to learn how to read, and it sucks the joy out of it as students grow into the age in which they should be reading. Because of this, many students make up their mind that reading is not for them, and it becomes their least favorite “subject”.
This is so heartbreaking to me, as reading has always been an enjoyable activity for me. As a child, I don’t remember the age in which I learned to read, but I do remember having times with my father in which he would read books to me, and I eventually began reading to him. This was always a fun ritual, and I feel that many students miss out on learning how to read for pleasure. Nowadays, it seems that the pressures of standardized testing cause students (and sometimes parents and teachers) to associate “reading” with dissecting a passage in order to answer as many questions correctly as possible- at least in the upper elementary grades.
While I don’t mean to say that this applies to all of my students, I have found it more challenging in recent years to inspire students to read for pleasure. It seems to me that the early pressures cause so much distress and discouragement among young readers that it often scars them for years. I feel that having the privilege to hear stories read to them, to interact with exciting and engaging books with a caring and enthusiastic reader, and being encouraged that all children learn to read at their own pace would all give young readers the opportunity to actually enjoy the act of reading- which will likely help children become more skilled, critical readers and thinkers as they mature.
Thank you, Lydia! What a lovely description of the reason why children love to read. I agree that children can read at their own pace. I appreciate your feedback.
Nancy, I agree with so many points in your post. Children should be exploring books and the beginning introduced to phonics. They are exploring these things through play. I think they are making our children grow up to fast. School reform is taking a serious toll on our students. I teach second grade. Most of them enjoy the journey of where books take them. I don’t think they fully understand just what is expected of them now verse back when I was in school.
I’ve been teaching for 22 years now. I just see the expectation get greater and greater. There are more EIP students, Tier 2 /3 students and students qualifying for SPED than ever before. Is it because they are pushing them to fast? They are constantly changing programs before they’ve had a chance to prove themselves. I would hate to think of my 2nd graders hating to read at an early age and then been thrown into high stakes testing is just heartbreaking. I understand the rigor and challenging them, but when will there be a balance?
I taught first grade for seventeen years, then moved to kindergarten for five years. At the end of my years in kindergarten I was teaching my students what I taught first graders when I began my teaching career. We are putting a lot of pressure on five-year-olds. While some are ready, others are not, and I agree that we label them as struggling readers very early.
However, I would like to focus on a different point you made in the article. I too feel that teachers have been taught to rely on corporate programs to teach reading. It does weaken their professionalism! I taught from Reading Wonders and it, like many other packaged reading programs, lulls teachers into simply ‘going through the motions’ of reading instruction because they have been told they must follow a prescriptive reading program with fidelity by their administration or they do so because they do not know what else to do. They teach the program but may not be aware of what part of the reading process the program is teaching. Are they teaching all components of the reading process? Are they leaving out important fundamental elements? I believe that we must build teachers capacity to know and teach the reading process. Begin with a solid foundation of phonemic awareness, then move into phonics instruction. The ‘science of reading’ is vital, but a good balance is key. After this foundation, fluency and vocabulary bridge the way to comprehension. All this can be done with any core reading program IF the teacher has been supported with professional learning and onsite coaching to strengthen their skills as reading teachers. The assumption that teachers are weak and incapable of being/becoming solid reading teachers is insulting and demeaning. It’s time to lift teachers up, celebrate their successes despite being criticized in the media, and give them the support they deserve.
First, thank you for commenting, Kathy. I agree with your points about teachers. Not so much about phonemic awareness. I believe some children need more of it than others. Not sure it is where teachers should begin with early learners either. I fear children are being pushed to decode before they’re ready and even understand the joy of reading.
Nancy,
Your article is so relevant to the current discussions at our school. We are currently trying to pick a research-based reading program that corresponds with Common Core for our K-12 school. We are in a unique situation because Pre-k through 12th grade is housed in one building separated by the cafeteria. This setup does make it easier for all grade levels to work together. Teachers were recently given the task of going to What Works Clearinghouse, picking two or three programs that we researched, and turning our information into the Curriculum Director for further review. I’m not sure what the reason is but we have so many students that are in middle school and are reading on an elementary level, unfortunately, we do have some non-readers in middle and high school. One thing that I have noticed is that most of my middle school students do not enjoy reading. Your article made me wonder if this could be due to the amount of pressure that we put on them in the early years to read. Maybe they have lost the fun in reading because they are forced to read topics they are not interested in. Teachers are under so much pressure for students to meet certain benchmarks for reading at certain times in the school year, that they are also feeling overwhelmed and defeated when students do not meet these standards. Teachers now fear for their jobs if students are not meeting expectations on the Milestones. It is my fear that good teachers will be pushed out of education because students are not meeting CC expectations.
Kim
Hi Kimberly, Thank you for you comment. I am not a fan of Common Core and schools that build their programs around those standards. There’s a lot of concern that it is especially inappropriate for early learners. Perhaps middle school readers are not doing well because they were pushed to read too early. .
Students are being forced to read too early with unauthentic practices. I agree that children should be taught according to their needs and to their development. Reading needs to develop naturally. Students in grades as early as pre-school can be taught emergent reading skills through developmentally appropriate practices. Play needs to be brought back into schools for early childhood students. Through play, students can construct meaningful and critical language, reading, and writing skills. For example, in the kitchen center in a preschool classroom, students can “write” out a grocery list using phonics skills they already have. Similarly, in a first grade classroom, while learning about producers and consumers, students can use their literacy skills to create a poster to hire someone for different jobs, such as a baker.
A multi-million dollar curriculum nor a computer will be the saving grace for reading instruction. Teachers with a passion and knowledge can inspire the love of reading in children. Reading is like science, in that, it’s all around us, and by reading, we learn more about our world, and with reading, we can become critical agents to effect change within our world.
Unfortunately, someone learned how to turn education into a business, and ever since then, our future seems bleak.
Very wise words, Tiffany. I agree with it all. Thank you for commenting.